State Cases in which Bath & Edmonds attorneys were trial counsel
      (and in many cases appellate counsel)

State v. Windes, 13 Kan. App. 2d 577 (1989)
     (1st impression holding re 4th Amendment not applicable to private searches)

State v. Budgetts, 810 P.2d 1172 (1991)

State v. El Ayadi, 16 Kan. App. 2d 596 (1991)
     (defining newly discovered evidence regarding motion for new trial)

State v. Finley, 17 Kan. App. 2d 246 (1992)
     (defining reasonable suspicion for automobile stop)

State v. McKessor, 246 Kan. 1 (1990)
     (1st impression holding re public safety exception to 5th Amendment)

State v. Heide, 249 Kan 723 (1991)
     (1st impression hold re allocution at sentencing)

State v. Clemons, 251 Kan. 473 (1992)
     (defining circumstantial evidence in 1st degree murder case)

State v. Blackburn, 251 Kan. 787 (1992)
     (defining admissibility of accused character evidence)

State v. Johnson-Howell, 225 Kan. 928 (1994)
     (defining circumstantial evidence in first degree murder case; admissibility of co-conspirator statement)
     In re: Care and Treatment of Ingram, 266 Kan. 46 (1998)
     (affirming dismissal of Sexual Predator action)

State v. Rousseau, 34 S.W. 3d 254 (2000)
     (Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed trial court's dismissal of charges)

State v. Galloway, 235 Kan. 70 (1984)
     (1st impression regarding use of composite image in Kansas)

State v. Latimer, 9 Kan.App. 2d 728 (1984)
     (interpretation of a using a false name to obstruct law enforcement)

State v. Dotson, 256 Kan. 406 (1994)
     (defining admissibility of prior acts evidence regarding child abuse charges)

State v. Messer, (unpublished) No. 65,032 (July 12, 1991)
     (discussion of circumstantial evidence and robbery and aggravated kidnapping charges)

State v. Baptiste, (unpublished) No. 65,880 (August 23, 1991)

State v. Marino, (unpublished) No. 64,767 (April 26, 1991)
     (discussion of evidence regarding search and seizure and molotov cocktail
     evidence in narcotics distribution charge)

State v. Murphy, (unpublished) No. 65,357 (April 20, 1991)

State v. Pattison, (unpublished) No. 65,037 (April 19, 1991)

State v. Martis, No. 88,085 (February 6, 2004)
     (Martis charged with capital murder, but found guilty of first degree murder. Various issues raised)

State v. Sorvisto, (unpublished) No. 65,158 (January 18, 1991)
     (discussion of when person is in custody which require Miranda)

State v. Pitts, (unpublished) No. 64,674 (December 14, 1990)

State v. Winters, (unpublished) No. 64,072 (October 26, 1990)

State v. Williams, (unpublished) No. 63,945 (October 5, 1990)
     (discussion of evidence regarding second degree murder charge)

State v. Anderson, (unpublished) No. 64,173 (August 31, 1990)

State v. Griggs, (unpublished) No. 63,989 (July 13, 1990)
     (discussion of rape charge involving victim incapable of giving consent due to mental deficiency)

State v. Thomas, (unpublished) No. 64,043 (March 23, 1990)

State v. Abell, (unpublished) No. 62,730 (October 20, 1989)

State v. Comstock, (unpublished) No. 62,864 (September 8, 1989)

State v. Taylor, (unpublished) No. 62,107 (May 19, 1989)
     In re D. H., (unpublished) No. 62,504 (May 12, 1989)
     (discussion of sufficiency of evidence for termination of parental rights; Court of Appeals decision later
     reversed by the Supreme Court of Kansas)

State v. Razminas, (unpublished) No. 62,349 (April 21, 1989)

State v. Heard, (unpublished) No. 62,004 (December 16, 1988)

State v. Ford, (unpublished) No. 61,450 (September 30, 1988)

State Cases in which Bath & Edmonds attorneys were appellate counsel

State v. Zimmerman, 251 Kan. 54 (1992)

State v. McKessor, (unpublished) No. 62,067 (January 19, 1990)

State v. Lawrence, (unpublished) No. 67,018 (June 5, 1992)

State v. Dewitt, (unpublished) No. 66,349 (March 20, 1992)
     (discusses standard of evidence regarding child abuse charges)

State v. Kirkwood, (unpublished) No. 66,419 (March 13, 1992)

State v. Mank, (unpublished) No. 66,136 (September 13, 1991)

State v. Howard, (unpublished) No. 64,859 (November 21, 1990)

Lile v. State, (unpublished) No. 64,134 (July 27, 1990)

State v. Dodd, (unpublished) No. 64,021 (March 23, 1990)

State v. Jackman, (unpublished) No. 62,380 (March 24, 1989)

Federal Cases in which Bath & Edmonds’ attorneys were trial counsel
(and in most instances appellate counsel)

U.S. v. Williams, 109 F. 3d 502 (8th Cir. 1997)
     (federal sentencing guidelines issues: weight calculation and sentencing entrapment)

U.S. v. Riley, 78 F. 3d 367 (8th Cir. 1996)
     (reversal of pre-conviction seizure of assets in RICO case)

U.S. v. Owen, 15 F. 3d 1528 (10th Cir. 1994)

U.S. v. Storey, 956 F. Supp. 934 (D. Kan. 1997)
     (various pretrial issues regarding federal death penalty case);

U.S. v. Jackson, 863 F. Supp. 1462 (D. Kan. 1994)

U.S. v. Ball, Case No. 99-20029 (D. Kan. 1999)
     (Rule 17 Subpoenas)

U.S. v. Daniels, 174 F. Supp. 2d 1205 (D. Kan. 2001)
     (various issues regarding physician charged with multiple counts of health care fraud)

U.S. v. Smith, 264 F. 3d 1012 (10th Cir. 2001)
     (interpretation of attempt to manufacture methamphetamine under federal sentencing guidelines)

U.S. v. McGuire, 200 F. 3d 668 (10th Cir. 1999)
     (discussing elements of the offense of carjacking and the scope of permissible cross-examination)

U.S. v. McCloud, 127 F. 3d 1284 (10th Cir. 1997)
     (interpretation of "knock and announce" rule during the execution of a search warrant, and quantity
     of "crack cocaine" to be used for sentencing)

U.S. v. Scroger, 98 F. 3d 1256 (10th Cir. 1996)
     (discussion of exigent circumstances in seizure of methamphetamine laboratory)

U.S. v. Taylor, 97 F. 3d 1360 (10th Cir. 1996)
     (interpretation of relevant conduct for methamphetamine labs under the sentencing guidelines)

U.S. v. Kimball, 73 F. 3d 269 (10th Cir. 1995)
     (discussion of FRE 404(b) and res gestae in bank robbery case)

U.S. v. Hill, 60 F. 3d 672 (10th Cir. 1995)
     (interpretation of FRE 404(b) and prior arrests in narcotics distribution case)

U.S. v. Turner, 44 F. 3d 900 (10th Cir. 1995)
     (case of 1st impression on use of "necessity" as a defense in abortion rights case)

U.S. v. Hand, 913 F. 2d 854 (10th Cir. 1990)
     (interpretation of plea agreement’s affect on cross-examination at sentencing)

U.S. v. Mora, 845 F. 2d 233 (10th Cir. 1988)
     (discussion of chain of custody, prior bad acts and sufficiency of the evidence in
     narcotics conspiracy prosecution)

U.S. v. Mayfield, 810 F. 2d 943 (10th Cir. 1987)
     (interpretation of prior conviction under federal felon in possession of firearms charges)

U.S. v. Coon, 187 F. 3d 888 (1999)
     (discussion of evidence sufficient for RICO, travel act and conspiracy violations)

Federal cases in which Bath & Edmonds attorneys were appellate counsel

U.S. v. Osborn, Case No. 01-3094 (Lexis 4180) (10th Cir. 2002)

U.S. v. Williams, 50 F.3d 863 (10th Cir. 1995)
     (determination of relevant conduct for interstate theft from a retail establishment)

U.S. v. Smith, 810 F.2d 996 (10th Cir. 1987)
     (examination of whether a search by a private party constitutes an unconstitutional
     seizure when item is turned over to law enforcement)

U.S. v. Rome, 809 F.2d 665 (10th Cir. 1987)
     (discussion of legality of telephonic search warrant in narcotics prosecution)